By definition via Dictionary.com.. Rogue: 1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel. 2. a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues. 3. a tramp or vagabond. Swashbuckler: 1. a swaggering swordsman, soldier, or adventurer; daredevil. What about these desciptions says good alignment only? What description classifies, all the other archtypes, as being able to align with either faction? How would it break the game or lore if swashies could align with Freeport? Even Antonia Bayle and Lucan, in the Fallen Swords timeline, have come together, set aside their differences, and are working together to save Norrath. We're pirates.. we're Dread pirates and cunning saboteurs! Yes, I'm wanting to worship Anashti Sul. She's hawt! I'm really hoping an expert (red name) can help me.
Ryptide@Permafrost wrote: I know this post is a bit old, but I sort of agree a little bit. Swashbucklers aren't good, they're deceptivly charming. A good person will WOW you and be your friend always. A swashbuckler WOW's you and steals your wallet. More than that, I clicked this thread because What is a Swashbuckler? Seriously, what separates them from assassins/brigands/rangers/other scouts? Their role is the same - dps. They all use melee (and some access to bows too). Their abilities are very similar from one to the other, they just come with different names. Other than the roleplay differences and a couple abilities, they're cookie cutter. What is the roleplay difference between a brigand and a swashbuckler? As I see it, a brigand is just a more brutish example of a swashbuckler. Where a swashbuckler might woo you with some poetry or syrupy compliments while he orchestrates his plan to get what he wants (and killing you if he has to), a brigand just shows up with weapons drawn and goes straight to it without the charm. How do you implement this difference in the abilities of these two classes? As I see it, the content is the limiting factor. It's just straight hack/slash. A brigand will wait for the merchant van to cross by before ambushing it. A swashbuckler will go to the cocktail parties and bars to get to know who's who before he concocts his plan to get rich quick just like a true psychopath. But the content is so stripped of variation that what you end up with is just a camp of monsters waiting to be slaughtered. Whether the swashbuckler woo's a monster or two before attacking doesn't make much difference - it's pretty much the same result you get with the brigand. Most RPGs are so hack/slash based that the roles of the different classes get muddled and overlooked in favor of hack/slash. Having said that, I think a swashbuckler should have an ability to make his enemy more likely to stand down rather than attack. If gnolls are his enemy, a swashbuckler might learn their language and know a couple of them. But he uses this as a tactic to pacify them as he hides his truer intentions. He will always side with those who have the most money or wealth to offer - in this case, he'd probably help qeynos, but he'd also help the gnolls to a lesser extent. A brigand, on the other hand, isn't so witty with personalities. Instead he/she just hits harder with a focus on ambushing his enemy in combat. Maybe after I play the scouts some more I'll see the differences more clearly.
